By that I mean, mountains that are straightforward/safe/walkup-like, and without the hazards of glaciers/seracs/avalanches/technical climbing.

Elbrus and Aconcagua are some of the deadliest mountains in the world (by number of climbers killed). Because they have some non-technical standard routes, doesn't always mean that they are safe and free from hazards.

Elbrus is definitely not free of glaciers, seracs, and avalanches. It is true that the standard route is straight forward and not very technical, but in bad weather it's easy to get off route which quickly leads to crevasse danger and even the standard route is surrounded by huge crevasse fields (that are avoided if you stay on route). Avalanches have actually taken several lives as well. While straight forward in good conditions, the mountain is a magnet for bad weather. Fairly non-technical in good conditions does not equal safe and free from hazards.

Altitude, cold, and storms have killed many on Aconcagua. In fact, in some ways the non-technical nature of the route actually makes it more dangerous because people tend to underestimate that mountain as well as climbers can really ascend fast on the route.

There are plenty of mountains above 14K that are safer than most of the ones on your list. In fact in Colorado, you can drive to or very near the summits of 2-3 of them.

Without going into essay format to ask what it is you're looking for, I'll say it looks a little like you're talking about cheap altitude. It's a deceptive term because while high peaks can be TECHNICALLY easy, there are severe risks in the form of faster weather changes, altitude-related illnesses, and the like. But that's not what you wanted to hear. I'll throw out Chachani, in Peru. In the best of conditions it's mostly a trail hike to 6k.